Re: Berber/Tifinagh (was: Swahili & Banthu)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 19:35:10 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Berber/Tifinagh (was: Swahili & Banthu)"

    At 23:33 +0100 2003-11-10, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    >You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set
    >of separate scripts


    >where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.

    We haven't decided what kind of unification is appropriate for
    Tifinagh entities yet.

    >Byt itself, ignoring all other transliteration to Latin and Arabic, "the"
    >Tifinagh scripts are already cyphers of another variant of Tifinagh script.

    I think this is rather muddled.

    >If characters are encoded by their names (as they should in Unicode)


    >then we are unable to produce an accurate chart showing
    >"representative glyphs", as no variant of the script covers the
    >whole abstract character set,
    >and so this would require several charts, i.e. multiple glyphs for the same
    >abstract character.

    I made a chart. It was a start.

    >In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among
    >these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract
    >character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family?

    Gosh. Because Latin is a different script.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:14:31 EST